English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2):
Choice between TO and ING
Czeglédi Csaba
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
Choice between TO and ING
The null hypothesis
The null hypothesis claims that the choice between TO and ING complements
is unpredictable, because it is determined by idiosyncratic properties of matrix
predicates.
Non-null hypotheses
Non-null hypotheses share these characteristics:
• the assumption that the distribution of NF complements is predictable;
• the conclusion that complement selection is not predictable on the basis of
syntactic characteristics of predicates;
• the assumption that complement selection is predictable on the basis of
semantic characteristics of predicates.
Choice between TO and ING
1
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
1. Particular vs. general
(1)
a.
b.
I like skating (in general).
I don’t like to skate today (on such a cold day).
ING complements describe an event type in general while infinitival
complements describe particular events (Budai and many other traditional
grammars).
Particular vs. general
2
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
2. Temporal deixis
(2)
(3)
(4)
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
I remembered to ask Brown.
I remember asking Brown.
I regret to ask Brown.
I regret asking Brown.
I regret to tell you that John stole it.
I regret telling you that John stole it.
ING complements on retrospective verbs, such as remember and regret,
express anteriority and infinitival complements on this subclass of verbs
express posteriority. ING complements suggest that the action described in the
complement sentence happened before, whereas infinitival complements
express that it happened after, the point in time expressed by the tense of the
matrix verb (Quirk et al. 1985).
Temporal deixis
3
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
3. Future orientation vs. sameness of time
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
a. He tried to fry the mushrooms.
b. He tried frying the mushrooms.
a. You will need a spanner to tighten that nut.
b. A spanner is used for tightening nuts.
a. I have kept this old jacket to give it to a jumble sale.
b. I kept this old Jacket for working in the garden.
a. John wants to go.
b. *John wants going.
Infinitival clauses imply futurity, sequence of times, future orientation as
opposed to gerundive complements, which imply simultaneity, sameness of
time, or present orientation (Wierzbicka 1988).
Future orientation vs. sameness of time
4
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
4. Potentiality vs. performance
(9)
a. He started to speak, but stopped because she objected.
b. He started speaking, and kept on for more than an hour.
(10) a. Sheila tried to bribe the jailor.
b. Sheila tried bribing the jailor.
(10a) expresses an abortive attempt at an act of bribery with the infinitival
clause suggesting potentiality; (10b) implies the fruitless performance of an act.
But the meaning of the matrix verb may cancel out the performance
interpretation of an ING clause, as in
(11) He escaped being branded as a traitor.
where escaped clearly implies that the event expressed in the embedded
sentence did not actually occur (Quirk et al. 1985).
Potentiality vs. performance
5
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
5. Projected, hypothetical, potential vs.
reification, performance
Infinitival complements express something projected, hypothetical or potential;
gerundive clauses express something reified, something actually done (Bolinger
1968).
The reverse is the case: the gerundive complement is the abstract form,
which may suggest intention, and the infinitival complement expresses
reification (Wood 1956).
Projected, hypothetical, potential vs. reification, performance
6
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
6. Like: desire, preference, choice vs. enjoyment,
repugnance
(12)
(13)
a. I like to sing.
b. I like singing.
I like to read in bed but I don't like having meals in bed.
When like and (do) not like take the infinitive, they suggest desire, preference
or choice, and in the negative reluctance. But with the gerund they suggest
enjoyment or repugnance respectively (Wood 1956).
Like: desire, preference, choice vs. enjoyment, repugnance
7
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
7. Implication
(14)
(15)
a.
b.
a.
b.
Did you think to ask Brown?
Did you think of asking Brown?
I decided to go.
I decided on going.
Decide on implies that a number of possibilities have been considered ('gone
through' in a person's mind) and that the subject decided to 'stop' on one of
these possibilities. Decide to doesn't imply any such series of possibilities
(Wierzbicka 1988).
Implication
8
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
8. Factivity and implicativeness
(16)
a. Everyone ignored Joan's being completely drunk. (f)
b. *Everyone supposed Joan's being completely drunk.(nf)
Gerunds can be objects of factive predicates, but not freely of nonfactive
predicates (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970).
(17)
a.
b.
(18)
a.
b.
They reported the enemy to have suffered a decisive defeat.
(nonfactive, S-to-O Raising)
They reported the enemy's having suffered a decisive defeat.
(factive)
I remembered him to be bald. (nonfactive, Raising)
I remembered his being bald. (factive)
With verbs that take either infinitival or gerundive complements and are
unmarked for factivity, gerundive complements are associated with a factive or
implicative reading infinitival complements are nonfactive and nonimplicative
(Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Karttunen 1971, Klein 1982).
Factivity and implicativeness
9
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
9. Aspectual contrast
(19)
(20)
a. He began to open all the cupboards.
b. He began opening all the cupboards.
a. I heard them shoot at him.
b. I heard them shooting at him.
In (19b) the plural noun suggests the repetition of the action, which is the
reason why the ING complement is preferred to the infinitive. Similarly, the
ING clause complement in (20b) expresses the repetition of shots (Quirk et al.
1985).
Aspectual contrast
10
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
References
Bolinger, Dwight (1968). Entailment and the Meaning of Structures. Glossa 2:
119–27.
Budai, László (1994). English Grammar. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative Verbs. Language 47: 340–58.
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M. and K. E.
Heidolph, eds., Progress in Linguistics, Janua Linguarum, Series Maior.
The Hague: Mouton, 143–73.
Klein, Eberhard (1982). Semantic and Pragmatic Indeterminacy in English
Non-finite Verb Complementation. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.
Tübingen: Narr.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985).
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Studies in Language
Companion Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References
11
English Nonfinite Complements
The Semantics of Nonfinite Complementation (2): Choice between TO and ING
Wood, Frederick T. (1956) Gerund versus Infinitive. English Language
Teaching XI: 10–17.
References
12